Posted by Brian Sorgatz at 2:41 PM
Will left this comment at August 3, 2006 10:19 PM
So, there's a definite correlation between money spent on advertising, and consumer purchasing of products/services. Since advertising focuses on things other than utility appealing to emotions and suggests connections that don't "naturally" exist between a product and a person's identity... I just wonder what you think marketing actually does. You've spent a lot of time telling us what marketing isn't... I'd like to hear what you think marketing is. What does marketing accomplish? How does it do it? Are some people more vulnerable to marketing? Why or why not? If this is too broad, perhaps you could give a few specific examples of what you've seen advertising do (or not do). I'm just curious, because I think this would help me (and others) understand your thought processes better when you discuss things related to this topic previously and in the future.
Scarlett left this comment at August 4, 2006 8:47 PM
lets talk
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at August 5, 2006 6:29 PM
Will,
Advertising and marketing aren’t as manipulative as you think. They’re a part of commercial culture, which does not enslave but liberates. I know I do this to you a lot, but an article in Reason explains it better than I could.
Will left this comment at August 6, 2006 12:09 AM
After reading that rather long article you've posted, I've got to admit that I'm rather disappointed. I expected to read an article that at once mentioned marketing and advertising, and in some way thematically addressed the questions I posted. I understand that there are benefits to capitalism... I am not opposed to capitalist systems.
I am, however, opposed to exploitation, oppression, and I find myself very disturbed by certain trends such as anorexia and bulemia. Capitalism, in its current form, has a rather large, dubious dark side. Previously, I've raised concerns about a for-profit system for education and health care which I believe should be part of what we consider the "commons". So I can think of several examples immediately of marketing/advertising that I find highly disconcerting considering its success in our society:
1) The Hummer: given that global warming is a huge problem and CO2 emissions are a major cause of this problem, how can we justify anyone buying a Hummer for any reason? 6 MPG is a disgrace and given that marketing works primarily by corporations spending money to spread ideas helpful to their cause, how can an environmental view possibly compete in a marketplace against the Hummer given that disparity of funds? My sense is that you believe all ideas are equal in a capitalist system, but as I tend to see it, ideas are skewed toward those who are able to market their ideas better - not necessarily to those who have better ideas.
And certainly, covert campaigns can be found everywhere: http://pandagon.net/2006/08/05/the-dangers-of-sniffing-your-own-ass/
2) Drug commericals: How the rules were changed to allow commercials to be shown on TV as they are now for drugs is beyond me, though I'm certain that the pharmacutical lobby was behind it. That someone can watch any major network and see commericials for drugs that are supposed to help with ailments they might have, to find out later that these drugs they are taking have serious side effects (like possible death) is really troublesome to me.
And, as a libertarian, I don't even know if you believe in the FDA, but I'd be scared as hell without one. And even so, it seems that we're getting closer and closer to having a nonfunctional FDA with stories such as these:
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=38633
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?n=69630-national-uniformity-warning-labels-food-safety
My point is that marketing does make a difference, and it can have serious negative effects on consumers and on society as a whole... though I'm not going to argue that consumerism in and of itself is a bad thing. I am simply suggesting that marketing and advertising cause problems, and you seem so pro-marketing and at the same time seem to suggest that people can easily choose to ignore marketing... but I don't think that explains the reality that I see.
I really would like for you to answer those questions I originally posted... though I found that article interesting, I don't think it really says one thing or another to my concerns about marketing and advertising. I do have concerns about cultural imperialism and how the system of capitalism is being integrated into poorer countries... but that isn't what I wanted to talk about.
I'd also like to note that I did not ever suggest that advertising or marketing nor the broader system of capitalism either slaves nor liberates people. I'm merely noting that marketing does have an effect, and a significant one at that. I was hoping to hear your perspective of what accounts for that effect... not so much a defense of capitalism.
nalinip left this comment at August 7, 2006 7:46 AM
coy marketing?
... or is that all for the bunnies!
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at August 7, 2006 10:20 AM
Will,
From the correlation between advertising funds and consumer purchases, you leap to a hasty conclusion that the former causes the latter. Correlation does not imply any one particular chain of causation. If only more of the voting population understood all the implications of that principle, we wouldn’t be fighting a war on drugs (for instance).
I can explain the correlation in a way that not only fits the facts but also dignifies individual choice in a manner truly consistent with liberal democratic values: The producers with the most money to spend on advertising are the ones that make or do the things that people most want to buy. Greater success in the marketplace leads to a bigger advertising budget. Customers are not victims.
Will left this comment at August 8, 2006 9:19 PM
So... you're telling me that advertising doesn't cause people to buy things... but that selling things causes people to advertise?
That makes so little sense to me that I can't even begin to respond on what the meaning of your version of reality would mean for us. I guess I can ask this - in the case that you're correct, does it matter one way or the other if advertising intentionally misleads, appeals to emotions in non-genuine ways, or otherwise intends to manipulate people? You say that the winners in the marketplace sell things that people "most want to buy", but what determines whether someone wants to buy a product - and not just any product, but a product of a certain brand that acts the same as many other brands?
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at August 28, 2006 10:27 AM
Will,
I’m sorry I took so long to reply.
You say that the winners in the marketplace sell things that people "most want to buy", but what determines whether someone wants to buy a product - and not just any product, but a product of a certain brand that acts the same as many other brands?
I don’t know. What determines whether someone wants to write a blog called Reflections on Playboy or The Search for Health in Decadence?
Anti-marketing literature, like anti-consumerist literature, always strikes me as self-righteous, hypocritical, and vain. This review of a new anti-consumerist book expresses my thoughts exactly.
« Home
Will left this comment at August 3, 2006 10:19 PM
nalinip left this comment at August 7, 2006 7:46 AM