Well, those grown adults who don’t have more money than they can spend in a lifetime, anyway.
It’s offensive to me for you to suggest that other people are being manipulated. You’re claiming some sort of intellectual superiority over everyone else. No one in this economy is being manipulated, at least not by any malicious definition of manipulate.
If you don’t want to be manipulated, then refuse to be manipulated. It’s not hard to do. It’s like you’re offended that you saw a poster for something you didn’t want. That’s completely bizarre. For every product out there, there’s someone that wants it. Not because they’re dumber than you, but because they have different preferences.
So go vote with your own pocketbook and quit calling me stupid for doing the same.
Really? I’d like to see that ad.
What? Can you show me an ad that casts that impression?
I’d love to see an example of a McDonald’s ad that says anything even close to that.
I know you’re using hyperbole, but it still kind of sounds to me like you guys might be injecting a lot of your own insecurities into these ads. I’ve never felt like an ad is telling me my friends will laugh at me, or I’ll die, or I’m a bad parent if I don’t buy the product. Not unless they’re tongue-in-cheek, anyway.
I defy anyone to find a logical argument in most advertisements. If they’re not trying to reason with their customers, how are they trying to influence them? What’s left besides manipulating peoples emotions? Sure, if I fall for it, I’m responsible, but I don’t like that people are trying to make me fall for irrational bullshit that even they don’t believe. Trying to put manufactured feelings in my head is like coming over my house and dumping cigar ashes on the floor–I have to then take the time and effort to notice the garbage and clean it up. As for children’s advertising–If I let my kid nag me into buying some useless toy that he’ll never play with, I’m at fault, but the ad rep who cajoled my kid into nagging me is too. People who manipulate children for pay are not nice people, and they are not coming over my house for dinner.
I live in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, where it seems like everything that’s not forbidden is compulsory, and I’m tired of it. I’m not pushing for new laws against advertisers any more than I favor restricting Fred Phelps’s freedom of speech. But I do wish they’d both shut the hell up, and I sympathize with the occasional pit rant against them.
Yeah, the idea that most advertisements aren’t blatantly emotionally manipulative is naive, at best.
“You’ve got ring around the collar!”
Or, to pick a more recent example, the “map wars” of Verizon and AT&T. All of the Verizon ones are nakedly based on the ridicule you will receive for being enough of a schlub to have AT&T’s clearly inferior coverage.
Good post, Ogre. I agree with you that my little reductions don’t mean much in the grand scheme of things, but I have to live with myself, and I’d feel worse if I didn’t do at least that much.
I don’t buy the idea that The Economy needs everyone to buy trivial shit all the time, either. Where do the profits that get syphoned out of the system and into rich people’s pockets fit into that economic model?
Rich people spend and invest money, and all of that money movement creates jobs. When you buy stuff, no matter how trivial, it creates jobs. When rich people buy stuff, it creates jobs. EVERYTHING that money is spent on means more jobs, more money being earned, more wealth creation for everyone.
I could say the same thing about electricity, indoor plumbing and automobiles.
The “economy” might not “care” but the world and society “does”.
Lets say a million dollars EXTRA are spent buying fancy sparkly more expensive deodorant rather than other non sparkly deodorant. There aint one thing better about it besides the fact somebody has convinced somebody else that its “better”, when in fact the only thing better about is its sparkly and it keeps some sparkly deodorant manufacturers, sellers, and advertisers in business.
THAT money could be spent enforcing meaningful environment regulations or making schools better or providing for someone’s health care or a gazillion other things that likely have a more tangible benifit than somebody feeling they are keeping up with society because they have sparkly deodorant.
Again, money spent on crap is money that could have been spent on non crap. Given that we have a nearly unlimited number of good things we could spend money on, it irks me a bit as well that so much effort appears to be expended by our society to convince us to spend it on trivial things instead. IMO its far from a spend it on crap or watch the economy go down the crapper sorta choice.
And yes, defining whats good or bad or trivial or not is nearly a fools errand, but that doesnt make the very concept invalid IMO.
That’s quite a fantasy you’ve concocted there. Millions of extra dollars on sparkly deodorant that, get this, actually costs the same as regular deodorant. There is no mythical product that adds zero value, yet sucks millions of dollars away from worthy charities. Most, if not all, products have inherent value, and making value judgments about whether or not football tickets, organic beef, or a donation to the Republican Party would be the best use of someone else’s money is a waste of time.
So you’re kinda saying it just trickles on down, huh?
Are you saying it doesn’t? Or, do you think you can automatically score points by bringing up a term that is associated with Ronald Reagan?
We aren’t talking about tax cuts, here.
Actually, what you quoted describes trickle up. Put money in the hands of the consumers and watch them go out and buy stuff.
Yup. It trickles on down into my paycheck.
Sure it does…sorta. Kinda. Unreliably and not really in any given timeframe.
But see my first post (76). It’s difficult to assess the overall amount that trickles down, since it usually ends up costing us vast amounts in mitigation, regulation, cleanup, etc. Unfortunately, we have a tendency to ignore those costs on the front end, either passing them on to somebody else, or to the next generation. Thus, the tragedy of the commons. Unsustainable.
And “points”? Are we collecting those now? Do I get to redeem them toward sparkly, useless tchotchkes? Who keeps track? I want my free case of CFC-laden styrofoam food trays, goddamnit!
Funny, I swore I was getting my paycheck twice a month. Guess I was wrong on that.
Wow. My friends who work for P&G will be interested to find out that they are sorta, kinda feeding their families, unreliably and not really in any given time frame.
These kinds of statements are a delusion. The idea that all of society is behind your eco-hippy dream world is just not true. Quit speaking of society as if your viewpoint is that of humanity as a whole, it isn’t. These statements are usually followed by a statement of obvious need to regulate behavior, the behavior of others, that is.
The doom and gloom segment of society preaching the end of the world as we know it was wrong 1000 years ago and will remain wrong for a 1000 years hence.
Consumerism feeds the economy, the money generated in turn literally feeds the people, much better than any social program ever will. By all means you should use your available money to purchase and support products that conform to your belief system. And if you are successful, your money will encourage those products and services toward greater use. The marketplace will ultimatly decide, not you.
And please, and I think I speak for society as a whole, please encourage your eco-hippy friends to purchase deodorant.
Sparkles are optional.