I think to me the effect of advertising is best seen in shaving ads. In the early 1900’s women often didn’t shave their legs or their armpits. In 1915 the shaving/hair removal companies started pushing heavily for shavingand it caught on. Now we have ads for men shaving their entire bodies because the company hopes you really feel like you aren’t attractive and clean without being hairless and are willing to drop a small fortune on razors and shaving cream.
Pretty cavalier dismissing that downside, aren’t you? You’re making an argument for positive benefits of advertising based on a tiny percentage of the population when the rest of the population disproves your point. When most people don’t spend the $35 on higher-priced vodka, they will spend it on something else, with similar-if-not-greater effects on the society, because two (or more) industries will get sales as opposed to one. Or possibly they’d pay off a little on a debt, which most would argue is a good thing. The percentage of people who are so awash with money that any less spent will sit idle in an account (promoting investment) is negligible enough not to merit serious consideration - so it’s specious to make some kind of economic argument in favor of advertising that requires you to conspicuously ignore everyone but the rich people.
That’s a good term for it - “eroded the quality of life.” No surprise, I hate advertising and I wish I could get it out of my life, but I don’t think that’s possible at this point. For the record, I don’t think for a second that I’m not being manipulated by it; I think I’m being manipulated in both obvious and insidious ways. I think a lot of people spend a lot of time and money making sure that I’m manipulated.
I think it would be interesting for people to consciously make a note of every instance of advertising/marketing they run into for a week - I think we’d all be shocked at our saturation. I just came back from buying groceries - there were at least two ads on my shopping cart. Wal-Mart has ads that start talking at me when I get within range of the motion sensors. When I go to a lacrosse game, I have to wait while someone broadcasts commercials to people not in the stands, and there are ads EVERYWHERE in the stadium. These are just a few examples off the top of my head.
Funnily enough, this is how saturated I feel in Canada. When we visit the US, I feel like the advertising ramps up to almost intolerable levels. I feel massively over-stimulated my whole time in the US.
I pay about $65 per month each for my tv and my internet. When I buy a movie on dvd, I also have no choice but to purchase advertising with that (and frequently advertising that I can’t avoid - I have to sit through it to see the movie).
That’s really interesting; I had wondered why women are shaving so much now. I can only imagine that guys are shaving more all the time, too, since every male I see in advertising is completely hairless aside from his head.
Try chapter skip; failing that, try fast forward. This works on 99+% of DVDs. As for the remaining ones (or rather, one, in my multi-hundred movie collection), the correct response is to hunt down the DVD manufacturer for death by pressing.
I’m equally cavalier, so let me just jump in long enough to cheerfully agree with what he said and you copy-and-pasted: we shouldn’t be in the business of interfering with such decisions, be they stupid or sensible. Ban false advertising, sure, and put good advertisments up to combat the bad ones, but, ultimately, what’s the least bad solution if not leaving it up to the people who are making the choices?
Yeah, I know: “There are two basic truths about advertising: everyone thinks that he or she is too smart to be influenced by it, and virtually no one actually is.” While I wonder, as an aside, about how to falsify such a claim, it nevertheless strikes me as being almost entirely unproblematic; I don’t much care why people make such decisions, only whether they make such decisions. If an ad is there to inform and persuade, then so long as it’s accurate on the former I can’t easily work up enthusiasm about the latter.
I think your missing the point in that many people think most ads are ANYTHING but accurate and informative.
Not to split too fine a hair, but I don’t care whether it’s accurate; I care whether it’s inaccurate. If people are swayed by false advertising, I care a great deal; if they’re swayed by ads that relay true information, I don’t; and if they’re swayed by ads that relay no information – I’m sorry, but I honestly can’t work up the enthusiasm; that’s their choice.
I don’t mind you being cavalier about that - I mind that he was touting the argued-as-positive effects of advertising on the 0.1% as part of an argument, while cavalierly dismissing the negative economic effects on the 99.9% despite the effect that they basically destroyed his argument.
Well, there’s influenced and there’s influenced - I’m certainly informed by advertisements, with the most noticeable example to me being that there’s lots of stuff I’d never have even known about were it not advertised; contrariwise I can’t think of a single time I’ve formed an opinion about the quality of a product due to advertising (because they do lie about that, all the time), and resultingly I haven’t found advertising to effect my purchasing selections amongst like items at all. Am I being unfair to think that I’m not seriously influenced by ads, due to the latter (apparent) lack of gullibility?
Ads have so spoiled television and, now, movies that I avoid both. I don’t watch either except when Mrs. Napier or the grandkid want me to.
I recently saw an ad for a tooth whitener that whitens the sides of teeth that are against one another, where you can’t see them. The tone of the ad was forboding and almost threatening, as if to suggest that the unseen nature of the less-than-white surfaces didn’t make their color irrelevant, but rather made it insidious.
I wish I could pay for all the content I consumed, on the web, in periodicals, and in broadcast media. I think the per capita cost of advertising in the US is something like $500 or $1000 yearly. If I could never see another ad for that kind of premium, I’d jump at the chance.
I don’t know if I’d go that far, though. He pointed out that market forces play out when the other 99.9% have “to live with the consequences of their stupid decisions” – and so, unlike the rich .1% who can keep spending and spending and spending their money, the other 99.9% have to smarten up fast enough to make adjustments, right? Fool me once, something something?
I’m not sure. How do you figure you stack up compared to the other consumers out there?
So the argument is that due to market forces non-rich people rapidly develop an immunity to advertising? Rephrasing slightly: the argument is that virtually everyone is immune to advertising and thus it is completely ineffective and no company would spend money on it?
That doesn’t sound right to me; maybe you’re reading him wrong. For example, I read the “to live with the consequences of their stupid decisions” part as basically saying “these people are idiots so I somehow don’t have to account for the economic effects on them when making an argument about the economic effects of advertising”. In other words, craptacular argument in the extreme.
Well, I’m too smart to be influenced by advertising, and virtually no-one else actually is, so I must be smarter than nearly everyone, right?
In all seriousness, some people must be being affected by the crap advertisers emit about things they already know about; they wouldn’t keep making ads pretending big macs are objectively better than everyone else if people weren’t buying it. I flatter myself to think I’m a little cannier/more cynical/more pessimistic/more fatalistic/more wracked with depression than them. Which is good, right?
I just think you’re glossing over a step: it’s not just that people keep buying Big Macs, it’s that those people then eat those Big Macs, and, uh, de gustibus non est disputandum, or whatever. I agree that advertising the questionable greatness of a Big Mac can increase the odds of folks in the 99.9% to try one, but at that point they’ll notice whether it tastes like masking tape and cigarette butts, at which point they (a) won’t keep buying Big Macs in particular and (b) will view the McDonald’s brand with a jaundiced eye the next time that company touts another product
But people do keep buying Big Macs; why? The advertising got a foot in the door – but you can’t follow that up with a shit sandwich, or else they’ll quickly develop an immunity to that brand’s ads.
I hope my answer clarified my position on this: I figure it’s somewhat effective right up until the product is actually in your mouth, at which point something else is in the driver’s seat. As to just how effective it is until that point, I figure that’s influenced by what you said about being canny or cynical or downright pessimistic: it’s a skeptical continuum, or something.
There’s a wide space between “best sandwich EVAR like the ad says that’ll get you friends and make you sexy and spawn you an awesome car” and “shit sandwich”, though. I am of the opinion that the largest effects of advertising are intended make the item more appealing relative to otherwise nearly-equivalent options. I think that pursuant of this aim they shovel a lot of bullshit, and that consumer decisions are made based on this bullshit, rather than being strictly based on the the quality of the item itself. Admittedly the item has to have some redeeming value or nothing can save it, but as long as it isn’t so terrible as to prompt rejection, familiarity (some of it ad-induced) will deter many people from giving other options an equal chance. Unless the other option gets an artificial leg up with ads of its own, of course.
As usual in discussions of advertising, the assumption is made that adverts simply market products so what harm could they possibly do?
In reality, advertisers have long known that it’s more effective to market a lifestyle, and then imply that your product will help a person attain that lifestyle.
The most obvious probable consequence of this is widespread dissatisfaction with life, because you’re constantly being told you need this lifestyle.
But perhaps there are long term effects on what lifestyles society craves. Perhaps we can lay partial responsibility for the credit crunch and a general style over substance philosophy that seems to pervade everything.
Funny, advert sketch I recently saw: link
But shifting it to lifestyle just moves the whole thing back a step: won’t people notice that eating a Big Mac doesn’t in fact make you sexy and spawn you an awesome car? Are they incompetent to note that they have not, in fact, gained two or twelve or twenty new friends?
And that’s where you and I might disagree. And maybe all we can do is disagree, but at least we can pin it down to that point: I don’t think it’s good enough to be one step above no redeeming value-slash-nothing can save it-slash-so terrible as to prompt rejection. (I mean, we might be quibbling over a minor point, since you quickly add that a nifty ad for the other side can sway consumers right back – but I merely disagree that we’re that stupid to begin with. I think a product has to be considerably better than “I wouldn’t say it has no redeeming value” to synergize with the advertisements, is all, because we’re going to reflect that opinion – be it ‘just barely passable’ or ‘quite satisfying’ or whatever – back at the whole brand, aren’t we?)
Advertising apparently works, so apparently a lot of people are that incompetent. Why do you think I think I’m at least a little brigher than these (unspecified) people?
So one step above no redeeming value-slash-nothing can save it-slash-so terrible as to prompt rejection doesn’t sound good enough to you. What about five steps? Ten? As I said, there is a broad range here, and we’re in many cases dealing with products which are either exactly equivalent, or as good as exactly equivalent given how little most people know about the actual differences in effectiveness of various detergents. And when people have to choose between such items, when the actual known information fails to give a clear answer? This is the realm advertising plays in - when you’re not choosing between trash and treasure.
Of course, sometimes there are real differences, so ads attempt to play up other comparable angles to level the playing field. They may be cheaper, but we’re fresher! And we’re flame boiled! And our commercial is funnier and has a cooler celebrity! As long as the superiority of one product isn’t clear across the board, advertising can influence the decision-making process.
Except with me - I’m way smarter than that. (And, uh, I mostly don’t watch the things. I guess that may help too.)
See, I disagree; I figure they keep coming back because they genuinely like to eat the occasional Big Mac, which they’ve tried in the past and consider to be worth the price. Nothing incompetent about that.
Because you said so, and as yet I have no reason to dispute you. (I mean, sure, you’ve joked about it somewhat, but you’ve straightforwardly said you figure you’re cannier than most folks and I don’t see why I should argue with that claim.)
And, again, that’s why I don’t much care: if the products really are “exactly equivalent or as good as exactly equivalent”, then what the heck do I care which one people buy?
Still not caring.
Still not caring. (I’m not trying to sound callous; I just don’t see how that’s any kind of nightmare scenario. Give me a trash-and-treasure scenario and, then, sure, yeah. Give me a shit sandwich and, okay, let’s get all up in arms. But if we’re in a situation where the competition is so close that an advertisement can make the difference, then I don’t really see a problem.)
You’re forgetting that advertising works.
Seriously, try to keep that in mind. In the scenaro you’re describing advertising isn’t having an effect on behavior; it’s purely taste preferences. But if that’s the case, then why do people pour hundreds of millions of dollars into advertising? I’d say that you are clearly overlooking or downplaying an effect that advertising has.
Strangely, I’d almost* agree with this, if you weren’t overlooking something - advertising is annoying as hell, and it’s everywhere. It’s itself a social ill that provides no significant societal benefit. Kinda like smog. I can complain about smog, right?
- I say “almost” because I think advertizing that does something other than simply inform (which is to say all of it) will by nature distort market behavior, in preference of companies with more money to spend on advertising. This can create an artificial barrier to smaller companies competing in the marketplace, not based on the quality of their goods. This will tend to retard the ability of market forces to select for optimal products to some degree, which is almost certainly at least somewhat bad.
A large aspect of advertising is in letting you know that such a product exists. You can only become inclined to purchase something if you know there is such a thing. In that sense, the ad may very well have made you become inclined to make a purchase. And even if you already were aware of the product, you might have largely forgotten about it or not really been thinking about solving a particular problem that the product would allow you to fix, and so when the ad reminds you of the product, it occurs to you that you do indeed need something of that sort. Even if you don’t buy that manufacturer’s product, there’s still higher odds that you’ll buy theirs than if you didn’t buy anything at all.
But even if you haven’t been convinced by an ad to buy something, that doesn’t mean that you’re representative. Infomercials certainly seem to be able to support themselves.
Okay, I quit. I’ve repeated it multiple times that ads do influence me to buy things. I have never made the claim otherwise. I will no longer discuss the point.