TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum  

Go Back   TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum » Main Forum » The Principle of the Thing

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 24-10-11, 11:00 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default Advertising is a poison that demeans even love – and we're hooked on it

Advertising is a poison that demeans even love – and we're hooked on it
We are subjected to ever more pervasive messages to consume, encouraging dissatisfaction. Yet this column depends on it



George Monbiot
guardian.co.uk, Monday 24 October 2011 20.30 BST

We think we know who the enemies are: banks, big business, lobbyists, the politicians who exist to appease them. But somehow the sector which stitches this system of hypercapitalism together gets overlooked. That seems strange when you consider how pervasive it is. In fact you can probably see it right now. It is everywhere, yet we see without seeing, without understanding the role that it plays in our lives.

I am talking about the industry whose output frames this column and pays for it: advertising. For obvious reasons, it is seldom confronted by either the newspapers or the broadcasters.

The problem was laid out by Rory Sutherland when president of the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising. Marketing, he argued, is either ineffectual or it "raises enormous ethical questions every day". With admirable if disturbing candour he concluded that "I would rather be thought of as evil than useless." A new report by the Public Interest Research Centre and WWF opens up the discussion he appears to invite. Think of Me as Evil? asks the ethical questions that most of the media ignore.

Advertising claims to enhance our choice, but it offers us little choice about whether we see and hear it, and ever less choice about whether we respond to it. Since Edward Bernays began to apply the findings of his uncle Sigmund Freud, advertisers have been developing sophisticated means of overcoming our defences. In public they insist that if we become informed consumers and school our children in media literacy we have nothing to fear from their attempts at persuasion. In private they employ neurobiologists to find ingenious methods of bypassing the conscious mind.

Pervasiveness and repetition act like a battering ram against our minds. The first time we see an advertisement, we are likely to be aware of what it's telling us and what it is encouraging us to buy. From then on, we process it passively, absorbing its imagery and messages without contesting them, as we are no longer fully switched on. Brands and memes then become linked in ways our conscious minds fail to detect. As a report by the progressive thinktank Compass explains, the messages used by advertisers are designed to trigger emotional rather than rational responses. The low-attention processing model developed by Robert Heath at the University of Bath shows how, in a crowded advertising market, passive and implicit learning become the key drivers of emotional attachment. They are particularly powerful among children, as the prefrontal cortex – which helps us to interpret and analyse what we see – is not yet fully developed.

Advertising agencies build on this knowledge to minimise opportunities for the rational mind to intervene in choice. The research company TwoMinds, which has worked for Betfair, the drinks company Diageo, Mars, Nationwide and Waitrose, works to "uncover a layer of behavioural drivers that have previously remained elusive". New developments in neurobiology have allowed it to home in on "intuitive judgments" that "are made instantaneously and with little or no apparent conscious effort on the part of consumers – at point of purchase".

The power and pervasiveness of advertising helps to explain, I believe, the remarkable figure I stumbled across last week while reading the latest government spreadsheet on household spending. Households in the UK put an average of just £5.70 a week, or £296 a year, into savings and investments. Academic research suggests a link between advertising and both consumer debt and the number of hours we work. People who watch a lot of advertisements appear to save less, spend more and use more of their time working to meet their rising material aspirations. All three outcomes can have terrible impacts on family life. They also change the character of the nation. Burdened by debt, without savings, we are less free, less resilient, less able to stand up to those who bully us.

Invention is the mother of necessity. To keep their markets growing, companies must keep persuading us that we have unmet needs. In other words, they must encourage us to become dissatisfied with what we have. To be sexy, beautiful, happy, relaxed, we must buy their products. They shove us on to the hedonic treadmill, on which we must run ever faster to escape a growing sense of inadequacy.

The problem this causes was identified almost 300 years ago. In Robinson Crusoe, published in 1719, the hero remarks: "It put me to reflecting, how little repining there would be among mankind, at any condition of life, if people would rather compare their condition with those that are worse, in order to be thankful, than be always comparing them with those which are better, to assist their murmurings and complainings." Advertising encourages us to compare ourselves with those we perceive to be better off. It persuades us to trash our happiness and trash the biosphere to answer a craving it exists to perpetuate.

But perhaps the most important impact explored by Think of Me As Evil? is the one we discuss the least: the effect it has on our values. Our social identity is shaped by values which psychologists label as either extrinsic or intrinsic. People with a strong set of intrinsic values place most weight on their relationships with family, friends and community. They have a sense of self-acceptance and a concern for other people and the environment. People with largely extrinsic values are driven by a desire for status, wealth and power over others. They tend to be image-conscious, to have a strong desire to conform to social norms and to possess less concern for other people or the planet. They are also more likely to suffer from anxiety and depression and to report low levels of satisfaction with their lives.

We are not born with our values: they are embedded and normalised by the messages we receive from our social environment. Most advertising appeals to and reinforces extrinsic values. It doesn't matter what the product is: by celebrating image, beauty, wealth, power and status, it helps create an environment that shifts our value system. Some adverts appear to promote intrinsic values, associating their products with family life and strong communities. But they also create the impression that these values can be purchased, which demeans and undermines them. Even love is commingled with material aspiration, and those worthy of this love mostly conform to a narrow conception of beauty, lending greater weight to the importance of image.

I detest this poison, but I also recognise that I am becoming more dependent on it. As sales of print editions decline, newspapers lean even more heavily on advertising. Nor is the problem confined to the commercial media. Even those who write only for their own websites rely on search engines, platforms and programs ultimately funded by advertising. We're hooked on a drug that is destroying society. As with all addictions, the first step is to admit to it.

Advertising is a poison that demeans even love ? and we're hooked on it | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 25-10-11, 09:05 AM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,038
Default

Move to North Korea. No nasty capitalist advertising there. You'll love it.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 25-10-11, 09:32 AM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

ore fundamentally, how come I don't buy Lion chocolate bars when their advertising is better than the ads for my two most frequent choices - Bounty and Sneakers.

Or, another example, I just saw the ads for "Assassins - Revelations". They're... awesome is too tame a word... just mind-blowing is more like it.

And yet there is no way I am paying £40 for ANY game. Anything north of £15 is taking the piss. So I am not buying it. But their advertising? Oh, boy. I am a fan!

cc: accidental edit, reconstructed
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Last edited by contracycle; 25-10-11 at 11:36 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 25-10-11, 11:33 AM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

Originally Posted by Zichao View Post
Move to North Korea. No nasty capitalist advertising there. You'll love it.
Ha! They wish they had our level of propaganda.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 25-10-11, 11:37 AM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais View Post
ore fundamentally, how come I don't buy Lion chocolate bars when their advertising is better than the ads for my two most frequent choices - Bounty and Sneakers.
As you should well know, something doesn't have to be true in every single case in order to have a statistically measurable effect.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 25-10-11, 12:25 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

I do know that. But I think that the power of advertisement in single cases (i.e. per product) is vastly over-blown.

The reason(s) people prefer Apple tablets over other tablets are not due to specific ads. It's about occupying mental space and that doesn't really happen with buying a few TV spots.

What I would concede is that the general amount of ads is linked in a re-enforcing cycle with the prevalence of 'extrinsic values' in modern societies.

OTOH, you look at the collapse of the Soviet Union and, immediately, people clamored not for political freedoms or religious freedoms or whatnot but for cheap consumer goods and TV series like Dallas or Dynasty or Melrose Place and their even more awful Brazilian knock-offs.

Maybe it is human nature to want cheap, tacky, pointless piles of crap?
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 25-10-11, 12:55 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

Well, yes and no. I mean, yes Apple occupied a certain mental space, but I would suggest that that mental space was in large part created by both its advertising and its aesthetic design. The computer for not-nerds. But this has very little to do with the quality of the product, as people complaining of Apple;s control over iTunes and the like have discovered.

I certainly don't think an advertising campaign is guaranteed to succeed., but I think that;s also why most advertising is about brands and and what something "says about you".

As for the USSR, I think that's probably complicated by the fact that people who don;t get Dallas or whatever don't really know what Dallas is, they only know its reputation. So what they are lusting after is not the thing itself, but the associations that surround the thing. Same applied in South Africa under the Equity band, except to British TV - we had plenty of American garbage.

And,I'm not saying that there is no desire for "tat" eye of the holder and all that. But the point of the OP is that advertising must strive to make us unhappy with the tat we've got so we buy new tat. We've inflicted on ourselves a vast social engineering programme without any thought or discussion of the consequences.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 25-10-11, 01:07 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,038
Default

So what do we do? Ban advertising? Am I still allowed to recommend good products to my friends or will that destroy their fragile psyches and lead to my arrest? What about shop signs, are they ok? How about ads asking for donations to charity? Cinema trailers? Political campaigning?
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 25-10-11, 01:13 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

Well of courtse, my preferred solution is to move to a system that isn;t so dependent on either capitalism or sales.

Political campaigning, over here anyway, is constrained, and a good thing too IMO. I'm only concerned with the domination of advertising, not its absolute existence. A shop sign doesn't tell a little story about how you're a failure unless you buy product X.

The irony is that almost every dystopian parody of advertising is coming true. The other day there were a couple of guys renting out their faces for adverts, to pay tuition fees. Some sense of proportion is in order.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 25-10-11, 01:36 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,038
Default

Quote:
A shop sign doesn't tell a little story about how you're a failure unless you buy product X.
A classy shop sign creates a different image from a shabby one, though.

Quote:
The irony is that almost every dystopian parody of advertising is coming true. The other day there were a couple of guys renting out their faces for adverts, to pay tuition fees. Some sense of proportion is in order.
You'd they'd just get a student loan repayable when they start earning, much like everyone else. Drama students, huh?
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
Reply


(View-All Members who have read this thread : 3
contracycle, Gilles de Rais, Zichao
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0