Hey! Let's ban advertising!

I recently stumbled across an old list of the most common advertising techniques. We studied this stuff in my high school English class if my memory serves me correctly. Here’s a quick summary for the uninitiated:

[ol]
[li]Avante Garde: The assertion that a product will put you on the cutting edge of fashion, style, or technology. E.g. A Calvin Klein commercial with lots of half-naked skinny people.[/li][li]Bandwagon: An appeal to herd mentality. E.g. “Over one million Americans use Tide, and so should you!”[/li][li]Facts and Figures:The use of facts and figures to convince you that a product is superior to all others. E.g. “Lasts 50% longer than the leading brand”.[/li][li]Glittering Generalities: Seemingly positive statements which mean absolutely nothing. E.g. “New and Improved!” or “America’s favorite car!”.[/li][li]Hidden Fears: The use of scare tactics. E.g. “Failure to rinse with our mouthwash can lead to gingivitis!!”[/li][li]Magic Ingredients: An appeal to scientific ignorance. E.g. “Contains Dihydrogen Monoxide for added moisturizing power!”[/li][li]Patriotism: An appeal to your love of country. E.g. “Made in the U.S.A.”.[/li][li]Plain Folks: An appeal to wholesome, old-fashioned, plain-and-simple, down-to-earth sensibility. E.g. “My great Granddaddy ate Muslix every morning on the farm.”[/li][li]Snob Appeal: The association of a product with something elite and glamorous. The opposite of plain folks. E.g. any commercial for an automobile worth more than $30,000.[/li][li]Transfer: The association of a product with something positive, even if it has nothing to do with the actual product. E.g. a beer commercial with beautiful, scantily-clad women.[/li][li]Testimonial: A famous person endorses a product. E.g “I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV”.[/li][li]Wit and Humor: Supposedly, a person is more likely to remember a product if the commercial is funny. E.g. Jack-in-the-Box commercials.[/li][/ol]

By the gods, this is not advertising, this is propaganda! With the possible exception of facts and figures, these techniques are nothing more than a list psychological warfare tactics designed to play our own hopes and fears against us! Advertising is the underhanded manipulation of human emotions for profit!!

What’s more, advertising completely saturates Western civilization. You can’t get away from it! You find it on TV, radio, billboards, and buses. It pervades the Internet. It garnishes sporting events. It fills our mailboxes. It’s written across the sky, stamped on T-shirts, and plastered on the sides of buildings. It’s even creeping into public schools. What’s next? National monuments? Churches?

As a result, modern culture has become almost entirely commercial. We have been dehumanized into a race of consumers — our value as human beings is based directly on how much we can consume. From a very young age we are trained to equate the act of purchasing with personal gratification. We foolishly believe the myth that money can buy us happiness, and we are lured into wasting our resources on useless frivolities, such as cars with heated steering wheels or lights that respond to the clapping of hands. We are becoming desensitized to visual and audio stimuli as commercials become increasingly louder, faster, and more bizarre to capture our attention for the split-second required to imprint a brand name onto our brains. Anything not endorsed by a company — anything lacking an official sponsor — becomes a waste of time. If something doesn’t have a brand, it’s worthless. The things in life that money can’t buy — a sunset, a summer breeze in the treetops, true friendship — are worthless.

My Naive and Wildly Impractical Solution (NWIS) is to ban all forms of advertising. Think about the consequences! First of all, lacking any input as to how we should properly spend our money, consumers would be forced to do research on all the products we buy rather than rely on brand recognition. Smaller companies without the resources to advertise would have a better chance at competing with the big boys, since the preferences of consumers would no longer be based solely on a product’s commercial success. The result: more opportunity for small business to make money.

The prices of all goods and services would fall drastically, since companies would no longer need to waste money on expensive advertising campaigns. The postal service would become more efficient, due to the elimination of junk mail. Terabytes of Internet bandwidth could be reclaimed if spam and banner ads could be eradicated. Of course, services that were once free (such as Television and gulp the Straight Dope Message Board) would have to start charging, but the quality of the service would improve because providers would no longer be forced to bow to the whims of finicky sponsors. Besides, we’d save so much money on other products that any extra fees would likely pale in comparison. Best of all, we wouldn’t have to look at so many damn commercials!

Fire away!

  • JB

Nice idea (seriously), but…

Wouldn’t businesses also go bust left, right and centre? If you can’t tell someone about your products, how do you sell them? How would internet businesses start up? How would any new business start up? Word of mouth is not really a solution.

Taken to an extreme, you could have rising unemployment fuelling higher social spending and falling consumer spending. Prices might fall, but without an increase in buying. Quality of service would not necessarily improve - advertisers provide commerical pressures, but also the finances to maintain said services (whether it’s TV, postal services or internet services).

Plus, how would you equalise the current state of affairs? You couldn’t wipe consumers’ minds of the advertising they’ve taken in this far. The big names would remain big because consumers have already heard of them. My cynical side doubts that consumers really want to research the best product - as much as some companies dominate markets, so some consumers are happy to be dominated.

Yeah, I hate that. The worst thing about settling in at home after work is when the headlocker robot comes careening into the den and clamps itself onto my head.

You might try what I did. Decalibrate those little things on the headlocker that fix your eyes on the television set. When I decalibrate mine, I find that I can look away with only moderate effort.

Also don’t forget we would have to lose TV, radio, etc. in the progress as those things mainly depend upon advertising in order to make money. Now whether you think that is a good thing or a bad, thing (to lose TV) is another debate entirely.

Don’t know how it is with the US postal system, but the junk mail is how Canada Post makes its money, allowing it to cross-subsidise first class mail - so eliminating flyers would likely increase the cost of the first-class mail.

by the way, there’s a little First Amendment issue you may want to consider.

Nah, I just use the mute button. Thanks for the advice, though!

  • JB

A book you might want to read is “The Merchant’s Wars” by Frederick Pohl. It’s the sequel to “The Space Merchants” by Pohl and C.M. Kornbluth (which you also might want to read – it’s a science fiction classic). In TMW a newly-colonized planet Venus is made an advertising-free world. In fact, they trumpet the shortcomings of products. (The Space Merchants is exactly the opposite – a world in which advertising runs everything.

You might also want to see Ursula K. LeGuin’s “The Dispossessed”, another SF classic that involves an antiadvertising world, with similar tendencies (a “toilet” is called very frankly a “shitstool”).

Finally, there was a wonderful paperback written by an advertising insider (whose name I can’t recall) entitled “I Can Sell You Anything”, about the insidious weaseling of advertising. Worth a look if you can find it.

And don’t forget James Tiptree’s sublime “The Girl Who was Plugged In” set in a world where “huckstering” is a felony.

Scott Adams, in his book The Dilbert Future, projected that the science of advertising would eventually become nigh-perfected, such that we (the consumers) would no longer have any conscious choice as to whether or not we buy something.

He may be right. He turned out to be eerily accurate with other predictions, such as “in the future, the media will take to killing celebrities to create their own news,” around a year before the Princess Di “mishap”.

Advertising is speech with the purpose of influencing behavior; usually commercial behavior, but not limited to it. There are ads for cultural events, churches, civic awareness; I am wondering if these are to be banned in your proposal. These statements:
“…these techniques are nothing more than a list psychological warfare tactics designed to play our own hopes and fears against us! Advertising is the underhanded manipulation of human emotions for profit!!.. We have been dehumanized into a race of consumers — our value as human beings is based directly on how much we can consume.”
lead me to think you don’t object so much to the techniques themselves as much as the behavior they influence. It’s that behavior you want to eliminate, and propose to do so by eliminating one of the things that encourages it. But that’s throwing away a useful tool for influencing good behavior. (Behavior that you approve of, that is.) Some suggestions: Ban the behavior you don’t like; you know, forbid people from owning too many things or making too much money to be able to do so. That idea isn’t very popular, although there are some people who like it. Another idea: Use the same tools that other advertisers use to encourage the behavior that you do approve of. Lots of people who agree with you are already doing that.

Max - excellent book, The Dilbert Future. Both humorous and disturbing.

But what about politics? How will I know who to vote for (well… against actually) without a 10 second sound bites or malicious attack ads?

Shame on you! I see your game! You want us all to become informed about the actual issues don’t you? Make us watch debates too I bet. Well buddy, I’m an American voter, and I want shameless appeals to emotion! Hyperbole and scaremongering! If a candidate can’t put together a staff of awesome spin artists, then I sure as heck don’t want him running the country! Where’s the fun of electing people if there isn’t any mudslinging going on?

Advertising represents the discovery that it is much too inefficient for a company to produce things that people need or want. Instead, modern businesses decide what people ought to need or want, build and ship it, and then promulgate advertising telling the people that they need or want the product. It is very efficient and much more rational than the other system. :rolleyes:

Quoth Lib:

I understand what you’re saying as far as TV commercials go, but it doesn’t stop there. May I offer 3 examples?

  1. Several years ago I was watching the Boston Pops and the 7/4 fireworks on TV. In the sky behind the fireworks was a blimp advertising Hood products. There was no avoiding seeing it. You could well tell me not to watch the TV, but I wanted to see the fireworks. Should I be forced to see an ad at the same time?

  2. A few years ago I was working in a skyscraper. I had a window with a great view of the city. One day, 5 planes were circling, more or less right in front of me. They were all trailing ads (banners). Why should I let them spoil my view? You might well tell me to shut the blinds. But why? Why should I give up a great view to avoid offensive advertising?

  3. City buses now sell ad space - that is, the entire bus is painted, windows and all. You can barely see out of them. Why should I have to miss my stop because someone wants to sell more Post Toasties?

Granted, these are extreme examples, but I just wanted to illustrate that not all advertising is unavoidable, as you claim.

Actually companies do provide goods or services that people need or want. When they fail to do so they go out of business. If people didn't need or want these things then no amount of advertisement would get them to spend their money on it.

 Companies don't generally decide what people will want they **try**to find out what people will want. I admit I'm swayed by advertisement. But only to the extent of "Hey, I might considering buying that."

 I suppose it isn't the most efficent system all the time. However it is a much more efficent and rational system then any you would advocate. :rolleyes:

Marc

tdn

You own the Boston Pops, a skyscraper, and a bus stop? Wow. I’m impressed!

(On the off-chance that I misunderstood you and you don’t own them, perhaps the opinions on advertising of their owners are equally as important as yours.)

But who cares? None of the examples you provided showed any evidence of a rights violation. You and I might be annoyed by advertisments but so what?

Marc

Hmmm, I don’t know. Seeing as the atmosphere is viewed by libertarians as an open-access commons, which we all have equal rights to, I can entertain the notion that the blimp and the airplanes are violating all of our rights, to some extent. On the other hand, if we’re going to have airplanes, there’s going to have to be some give and take on this issue. A for scenic views, you can own a vantage point, but entire views are rarely owned by one person. I don’t know…hard for me to see this one in terms of black and white.

As for the bus, well, that’s owned by your local government. You’ll have to make your voice heard.

-VM

Where do you draw the line? What about product placements in movies and on TV? I suppose that placements could be done away with, if everything used were generic, like in the movie Repo Man, but somebody is still selling it.

What about your resume? It is essentially an ad, as you are trying to sell your services to an employer. What about classified ads? How far do you want to take this?

Of course I didn’t mean to imply that I owned them. Then again, whose tax dollars paid for the bus?

But my point here really is that I couldn’t avoid this obnoxious advertising if I wanted to. I can’t avoid taking the bus, I can’t avoid work, and I shouldn’t have to avoid seeing a concert.

BTW, as far as the blimp thing goes, Hood got into a buttload of trouble over that. They had no legal right to do what they did, and they paid the price.

I can’t avoid a lot of things I don’t like. That’s just part of living in a free society. You could write to companies and ask them not to advertise in places you find to be inappropriate or you could ignore them.

I would imagine that Hood got into trouble for violation of air space or something.

Marc